Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Prelude: we are all, as at least one theory has it, more or less the product of our genes and experience; i.e. nature vs. nurture. I find this fascinating and doubly so when one considers the cyclic process of 'Bringing up baby'; here I'd like to emphasize what one should and should not say to young children.

I've been reading Dawkins' "God Deception" (I'm about half-way), and there's a bit in there which accords with, and extends, one of my own pet theories; namely the inculcation of irrational rubbish into young children, in the period I call 'before the age of reason.' Dawkins gives an evolutionary explanation, that it's in a child's vital interest to be toadally® credible; in this way kids suck-up survival-type knowledge fastest. (i.e. "Stop, look, listen!" - but perfect safety can never be guaranteed.) But, by being so uncritically credible, kids believe just about everything their 'trusted ones' (parents, carers) ever say, even when it is irrational rubbish (like religion, say). More? See [1]. And as for religion, so politics? Dawkins' theory (confirming, complimenting, extending mine) explains a lot...

-=*=-

Alan Curran: "Howard haters."

G'day Alan, seems you are well known around here. I had to smile when I read this from Mark Sergeant (g'day):

"...the subject 'Mugabe is a Marxist (or Fascist) Dictator,' there wouldn't be many posts. C Parsons, Mike Lyvers, and Jay White would make posts, agreeing. Geoff Pahoff could treat us to some nice pictures. Alan Curran might turn up, and blame it on the Labor Party."

Delicious! - Just as a matter of idle curiosity, Alan, do you fit the 'politics as religion' paradigm?

OK; now getting serious (and cutting a looong story short): I only have one vote to give up for my country, just like every other member of the sheople®. I've tried agitating for CIRs as a possible solution to this, only to be met by resistance; i.e. ridicule ranging through bored indifference to "What?"

Since I refuse to prostitute our democracy by selling my vote (i.e. see the Fraser/Lynch $5 election[2]), I have to prioritise like everybody else. And my priorities put 'murder for oil theft' above any scare campaign. Geddit yet, Alan?

-=*=-

Roger Fedyk: "I sent my kids to a church school. I tried to teach them about morals and ethics. Then one day they woke up and realised I sold them a pig-in-a-poke."

G'day Roger, also fascinating. There's lots'a things I'd like to discuss with you, i.e. greed vs. outright crime in business, but as a priority I would like to hear any tips you might be able to give, about how one should avoid "selling a pig-in-a-poke?" Thanks in advance.

-=*=-

Geoff Pahoff: "That one has to be over two hundred words!!"

Ahem. According to my copy of Microsoft Word 2000™, the sentence quoted has 194 words. Apart from spending time on such counting, imagine throwing away a post on something like that? One thing, though Geoff, by your post you've given Daniel's post a bit more exposure - eh? And me another chance to point out that the wanna-be world hegemon's illegal sprog murders 'their' land's dispossessed former owners in order to steal ever more land and wardah®.

Wha'd'y say to that, Geoff?

-=*=-

Jay White: "What's in it for me?"

(Whereas there's a certain amount of satisfaction to be had in 'Fisking' someone, the shine comes off a bit when a possible target Fisks himself first, and does such a good job as well. However, onwards...)

Jay, you've asked several questions of me; some from my recall are a) Q: what the Russians and Chinese may or may not be up to (A: How would I know?), b) Q: whether of not I support the UN and if so when (A: IMHO you are not keeping up, Jay, the UN failed to stop the illegal invasion of Iraq, just as it is failing on the fake Iran crisis prelude to the next illegal "Shock and Awe" attack. So what's to be supported, an ash-tray on a motorbike? The UN has been corrupted, Jay - both directly and indirectly by US threats - Oh, always only IMHO, of course) - and then c) "what is it you have against people seeking self determination and wealth creation?"

Well, what a load of...

'Moving on,' I had to smile again when I read this: "I have a problem with robber capitalism." (Pssst, Jay! Me too...)

Time for just one more from Jay: "you do quote that fairy tale Economic Hitman."

Now I could get a bit cross, Jay: I've asked you before to justify the slur if not slander of you saying "that fairy tale Economic Hitman."

For the record, the prime "Economic Hitman" thesis is that the US, via various strategies, including the misuse of international agencies like the IMF, various threats up to and including assassination (aka murder) and invasion (think: Iraq) rips-off resources, mainly from underdeveloped countries. (Contrast: Jay's "robber capitalism.") One method employed by the IMF (on behalf of US 'clients,' say) is to make a loan to an underdeveloped country to build a power station, say (end-users turn out to be mainly the rich.) The contract goes to a US firm (think: KBR, say) and some proportion of the loan goes straight into the pockets if the local elite (think: corruption); then all too often, the country finds it has difficulty paying for the loan. (Surprise? Hardly.) Sooo, then the US heavies the underdeveloped country; "Let us build a mine." There is a mine in NT (run by Xstrata; no, not US but playing the US game) which pays us zero royalties. We saw on the Bolivia thread, that Bolivia was losing 83% to the oil majors, mainly if not all US... Where's the justice in that? Silly question.

OK; should be enough to get my drift... What do I "have against people seeking self determination and wealth creation?"

Don't make me larf®, Jay.

Do you mean 'wealth creation' by "Hit Man" methods?

Or 'self determination,' as in the US puppet regime in Iraq, an illegal invasion followed by brutal occupation, all leading to one result: the theft of oil by mass-murder?

Just as I only have one vote to give up for my country, so my life. Which I'm currently dedicating to exposing truth, crying out for justice... and all because of B, B & H, "Shock and Awe," mass-murder for oil (in our name!) Hicks/Guantánamo, torture, rendition, illegal bugging, the Israel Lobby... You really wanna hear any more, Jay?

I can't know which country you call 'home,' Jay, but mine is currently involved in crimes of no less than the Nuremberg type. ("Under the Nuremberg Principles, the supreme international crime is that of commencing a war of aggression, because it is the crime from which all war crimes ...") I find that hideously disgusting, Jay, and not 'just' immoral but outright wrong.

Obviously, it seems to me that not only can you live with all'o the filth I've described, looks like you champion it, and don't hesitate to cheer it along. Hmmm?

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] The final step here, is the fatal error of parents being caught in a lie by their (young) sprogs. If that happens at a crucial point (say near the end of 'the age of reason,' or perhaps any time, danger!) - then the child a) having 1st believed the lie, then b) discovers the truth; s/he instantly suffers a deeep crisis of trust: "Oh, s**t! Who can I believe now? Help!" We anticipated this problem at chezPhil and agreed: no lies, ever, not even little-whites. Paid off, too.

As an aside, just as nobody said life was meant to be easy, so parenting. Here's an example from 'Bringing up baby:'

Q: "What's that, Daddy?" - if that received some sort'a satisfactory explanation, the next bit was almost guaranteed; Q: "Why?

What to do, try some philosophical discussion?

-=*=-

[2] Shock, horror!

Howard ... was first appointed to the ministry by Malcolm Fraser in 1975, becoming Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. He became Treasurer during the election campaign in 1977, taking over from Phillip Lynch who had become embroiled in a Victorian land deals scandal.

How odd, eh? Imagine: another Liberal politician in some grubby money scandal! Another, and another, and another...

Craig Rowley: "After all, Chris has made a huge investment in Ahmadinejad as figurehead of the pinkoslamic conspiracy."

You've got me there, Craig. Obviously President Ahmadinejad is, as you have repeatedly suggested, just a figurehead and front man for the Supreme Leader. So, if Ahmadinejad is kicked out, it will make no difference whatsoever.

Bob Wall: "On Hoder - what a dirty trick that would be for Iran to pull, changing presidents. Would undo all the carefully crafted work done to focus attention on and demonise the current president."

Talking of President Ahmadinejad and the pinkoslamic conspiracy, did you see this item? Chavez boosts Chomsky book sales  

A book by left-wing US author Noam Chomsky has reached a bestsellers' list after Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez praised it at the UN last week. A speech by Mr Chavez cited Chomsky's 2003 critique of US policy, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, as an "excellent book". 

That's the same Hugo Chavez who was personally awarded Iran's highest civilian honour by his close political ally President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Nope. No conspiracy there.

Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Javid Zarif, has proposed letting an international group, including the United States, own Iran's nuclear facilities. 

In an interview with Time magazine Zarif said that Iran could agree that its nuclear facilities, including all of its uranium enrichment plants, could be jointly owned by an international consortium. And all countries with concerns, including the US, could participate in that consortium.

Highlighting a theme I've pointed out previously Zarif told Time, "It is an issue of respect. Of course you are monitoring as you do this [own the facilities], but you are doing it with respect as owners and operators."

Bets on a Bush/Cheney administration entertaining such a deal?

G'day Craig, Angela, Daniel, Phil, et al., to start the day here is a lengthy piece with some history, some warnings and a deal of commonsense.

How to stop Bush? Kucinich uses the "I" word on the floor of the House. 

"This House cannot avoid its constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power," Kucinich said on the floor today. "The Administration has been preparing for an aggressive war against Iran. There is no solid, direct evidence that Iran has the intention of attacking the United States or its allies."

Kucinich noted that since the US "is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, a constituent treaty among the nations of the world," and Article II states that "all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state," then "even the threat of a war of aggression is illegal."

"Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes such treaties the Supreme Law of the Land," Kucinich continued. "This Administration, has openly threatened aggression against Iran in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter."

Kucinich added, "This week the House Appropriations Committee removed language from the Iraq war funding bill requiring the Administration, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, to seek permission before it launched an attack against Iran."

Another piece on a topic Angela has previously mentioned. 

There is universal agreement that the events of Sept. 11, 2001 altered the course of history. However, the response of the Bush administration to 9/11 eventually had a far greater impact than the original tragedy.

Seen in that light, Oct. 14, 2001 was an even more momentous day.

That was the day President George W. Bush rejected an offer by the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 terror.

Must have had things to do. What about the bodies? They don't count. Or so they say.

G'day Craig et al., the prospect of the rug being pulled out from under the demons Ahmadandbad brigade has thrown them somewhat. As I wrote earlier, much has been put into the process and it might come to nothing. Not a surprise then that relevant passages have either not been read or have been ignored. Speaking of relevance, or rather lack of it, that lack can be applied to several responses to points I made. Even some selective quoting was employed. Do they think people don't notice?

G'day Daniel, it is a puzzle how the victims became the "main oppressors". I can see your problem in coming to terms with it. Put it down to people creating their own reality - and I am referring to those who make these leaps of logic. Although I also don't see the logic, just the spin, which, with a little inspection, looks quite ridiculous. It might be funny if not for what is happening and what might happen.

Phil Kendall so you are saying you don't support the UN? Or do you support the UN sometimes? Or maybe never? Or maybe you did but today you don't? Which one is it?

BTW you never answered the question about why Russia or China would care anymore about Iran than anyone else? Apart from oil and selling them arms of course.

Phil Kendall: "They didn't go play in Iraq to liberate or democratize, or any of the other flimsy, ranging to outright stupid excuses they made-up as they went along, they went in to steal the bloody oil."

So say Kurdistan wished for independence you would be against this? And let's suppose that Kurdistan (actually gets on quite well with the US) wanted to get its oil industry moving along with US help you would be against them making this decision? And say Kurdistan attempted better relations with Turkey and other neighbours by oh I don't know say linking up with the BTC pipeline you would be against this also? If so what is it you have against people seeking self determination and wealth creation?

G'day Bob, and thanks for 'the antidote' and the 'Bloggers vs. the Lobby.'

But #1: (from a huffpo reader's comment on the antidote)

Americans are increasingly hopeful, pointing out the fact that Bush's poll numbers are around 30%, while Cheney's are even lower. However, within that minority are the super-rich, the oilgarchs, the heads of the media- and that is still where virtually all power rests. And that, I'm afraid, is not going to change. And Cheney knows it too- which is why he probably doesn't ( as he pointed out this year) have any trouble sleeping.  By: wsblake on March 14, 2007 at 11:52am

(I'd change oilgarchs to oily-garchs.)

But #2: (also huffpo, Pachacutec/AIPACt with the Devil of Global Militarism)

AIPAC is a virulently militaristic influence on U. S. policy, and ironically, its agenda does not even coincide with the expressed voting interests of the majority of Jews living in the United States, who reject George Bush and his neocon wars of aggression. AIPAC's power, however, does not reside in its popularity, but in its connections, its influence among DC insiders, its ability to move money to candidates and its willingness to find allies among right wing evangelicals in the United States whose fundamental ideology supports the elimination of both Israel and Jewish religion. Much of the Democratic Party remains compromised by these influences, ...

IMHO, the Israel Lobby is one of the worst corruptions of democracy anywhere. And that's saying a lot.

Then, on another tack, Jay White: "I thought you people were pro UN actions? Isn't this how things are meant to be done in the perfect world?"

Me: Don't make me larf®. "Leave it to Blix!" - we, the anti-wars all cried! For the cats. The UN is as useless as a chocolate teapot. It's been corrupted, don'cha know, and looong ago. All across the world, the wanna-be hegemon and its illegitimate sprog spread lies, corruption and threats up to nukular, to enable their filthy thefts of oil, land and wardah®.

Here's part of a bleat from Blix:

Monday March 12, 2007 6:01 AM LONDON (AP) - The British government embellished intelligence used to justify the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, the former U.N. chief weapons inspector said in an interview broadcast Monday.

Hans Blix, who led the U.N. search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq until June 2003, said a later discredited dossier on Iraq's weapons programs had deliberately embellished the case for war.

[Britain Embellished Iraq Dossiers]

I'm supposing Blix meant Blair's "Dodgy Dossier," which was Oh so toadally® discredited. Then a smack back:

Hans Blix has decided that the Iraq war was 'clearly illegal'. Fine, but discovering a bit of backbone now is four years too late.
By Scott Ritter 03/14/07 "Guardian" ---

In a statement reflective of the blinding obvious reinforced by the convenient passage of time, Hans Blix, the former head of the UN weapons inspectors operating in Iraq prior to the March 2003 invasion by the US and UK, in a slap at the policies of George Bush and Tony Blair, noted that "If they'd [Bush and Blair] allowed us to carry on the inspections a couple of months more, ..."

[via ICH/After the event ]

Yeah. Like we said. But B, B & H were going anyway; they didn't wanna listen. Blix caved in back then, but not before this:

How Blix has failed the UN

The chief weapons inspector has harmed the credibility of the weapons inspections, writes Tony Parkinson. Hans Blix was never going to make the hard call on ...

[theage]

This article from Parkinson is a prime example of how the venal MSM not only passes on the corrupt politicians' lies, but voluntarily augments them as well. In this respect, Parkinson at theAge is an exact analogue to Judith Miller at the NYT.

The article prompted an email from me at the time:

To: tparkinson@theage.com.au 
Date: Thursday, March 13, 2003 8:02
Subject: RC UAV - How Blix has failed the UN
You warmongering bastard. What if this UAV is nothing more than what the Iraqi's claim, a large model aircraft which needs to be flown in sight of the command pilot on the ground with the RC handset?
Send the world to Armageddon for this?
Those who advocate this war are just as guilty as those giving the orders.

Of course, we all know now, that they all knew back then, that there were no WMDs.

They didn't go play in Iraq to liberate or democratize, or any of the other flimsy, ranging to outright stupid excuses they made-up as they went along, they went in to steal the bloody oil.

Mike Lyvers, perhaps you should reread the paragraph from my previous post you commented on, and note that I mentioned a case of actual behaviour. Once you have understood this, perhaps you might then care, if you wish, to explain how the victims of that ongoing behaviour have become, in your view, the "main oppressors", due to, apparently, something you say they want to do.

Bob Wall: "......so soon to the UNSC for discussions on what next to do to a sovereign state for pursuing its legal rights and with no proof it is doing anything more."

If one of the conditions of Iran's international obligations under the terms of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty is to participate in IAEA inspection protocols, then Iran is in breach of the rules straight up.

Bob Wall: "On Hoder - what a dirty trick that would be for Iran to pull, changing presidents. Would undo all the carefully crafted work done to focus attention on and demonise the current president."

Oh? So suddenly it does matter what the President of Iran thinks? That's a switch after months of telling us he's just a figurehead.

Bob Wall: "On Hoder - what a dirty trick that would be for Iran to pull, changing presidents."

Dirty trick? I think not. It would be a wise move and something I am sure all would be happy to see. Including about 80% of Irans population. Maybe the "you're sacked" might get lost in translation?

Bob Wall: "G'day Craig, Angela, Daniel, Phil, thanks to Craig for that update, so soon to the UNSC for discussions on what next to do to a sovereign state for pursuing its legal rights and with no proof it is doing anything more. Refer to earlier posts for the hypocrisy of some states in the pushing for moves against Iran."

I thought you people were pro UN actions? Isn't this how things are meant to be done in the perfect world? You should be applauding the new found relationship between the US, Russia and China. Sure, not everyone agrees on every detail, but it is a start.

G'day Craig, Angela, Daniel, Phil, thanks to Craig for that update, so soon to the UNSC for discussions on what next to do to a sovereign state for pursuing its legal rights and with no proof it is doing anything more. Refer to earlier posts for the hypocrisy of some states in the pushing for moves against Iran.

Given the recent AIPAC Conference here is an article about resistance to the machinations of such groups coming from the blogosphere.

On Hoder - what a dirty trick that would be for Iran to pull, changing presidents. Would undo all the carefully crafted work done to focus attention on and demonise the current president. A whole new program would need to be devised - how about a starter - "Iranian president threatens to wipe up after dinner."

And for Craig, as he diligently waded through Limp Dick's speech - an antidote.

And Daniel, you really must express more concern for oppressed groups, because you do not want to risk becoming indifferent to such behaviour as a four decades long, illegal and brutal, Occupation that has had, and continues to have, treatment of its victims ranging from humiliation through to murder.

Jay White: "The only thing that surprises me about that number (62%) is that it was not bigger. Australians and Americans have an excellent relationship."

I think these things go through stages. At present it is fashionable amongst a minority to be hostile to everything they imagine to be "American".  The irony of that is, of course, so much of what they take for granted in the West as adding value to our lives is American, and I'm pretty sure if you were to survey people's attitudes to, say, Jazz? The semiconductor? The writing of Arthur Miller or Don DeLillo? Basketball? HipHop? The photocopier? Orange juice? Sliced bread? The Jumbo Jet? Greenpeace? The rollmop begel with a pickle, cream cheese and herring? The Jeep? Bob Dylan? Rock and Roll? Jim Jarmusch? The Portland Symphony Orchestra? Or similar such examples of American oppressive cultural imperialist hegemony, then they'd say 'Oh, no. We're not opposed to those. We just hate American stuff.'

My bet is many such people who are 'opposed' to American 'influence' in that 'hey look at me' way are the types of Lite intellectuals who write into the Herald letters page to complain about American language infiltrating 'our' language with words like 'Coz' for 'Cousin'  (actually an Elizabethan term that occurs in Shakespeare) or 'Program' for 'Programme' (actually a French variant affected by the Romantics in the early 19th century Britain but otherwise not previously seen in English). These are the people who think Australia should be a Republic with an elected President in order to better assert our unique cultural identity. And to get away from American influence in our political thinking.

UN ambassadors from the permanent 5+1 "agreed in principle" yesterday on a proposed new package of sanctions against Iran, a package they have been negotiating since 1 March. It's been reported that they are expected to introduce a resolution to the UN Security Council today, but agreement to the text isn't certain.

The resolution package still needs to be considered by the 10 non-permanent members of the UNSC before it is approved.

The US wants the sanctions broadened into the economic field and not just focused on nuclear work.  The idea is to punish Iran in general, not just prevent work on the nuclear program.  But other powers have been keen to keep the sanctions focused on the nuclear work, negotiating removal from the text both a mandatory travel ban on key Iranian officials and restrictions on credits to firms doing business in Iran, both items the US wanted.

Then there will be another 60 days in which we can watch moves by all the players and see who is moving toward a non-military solution and who isn't.

Daniel Smythe: "Please keep in mind that America and Israel don't need excuses to invade and occupy or to use nukes or to take other nations' assets or to kill their people."

So, what's happened to the "attack on Iran" that was the basis for this thread? Is it still on? Or has it gone the way of "peak oil" and the "Chinese economy overtaking the American economy"?

C Parsons: "And that the overwhleming majority of Australians support the ANZUS alliance? And that according to a survey 62 per cent of Australians regard themselves as "favourably disposed" toward Americans, more or less the same pecentage as those which regard themselves as "favourably disposed toward India or Singapore?"

The only thing that surprises me about that number (62%) is that it was not bigger. Australians and Americans have an excellent relationship. A relationship that serves both nations very well in so many areas. I have no reason to think this will not continue for a long time to come.

Now let's face a certain fact even Australia's and America's biggest critics are not jumping on the boat to go to Cuba, North Korea, Iran etc, now are they? No guessing what any of these people think is the best place to live. Actions always speak louder than words. And what people say and what people do is not always mutually exclusive.

Phil since you seem a little fond of economics or at least economic idea's (you do quote that fairy tale Economic Hitman) I suggest an off-beat book you may enjoy .

As you seem to me to be a person that cannot understand why people do the things they do, when they say something entirely different I suggest the chapter devoted to the game show The Weakest Link. The statistics on who gets voted off for not logical reasons (they were not the weakest link) is eye popping. Compulsory reading for any person interested in polls and how they relate to election outcomes. Or more importantly how they do not relate to election outcomes. It is not so much the answer is wrong as it is the wrong questions are being asked.

Daniel Smythe: "Chris Parsons is telling me the world loves America and cites Tourist surveys as his evidence."

I invite readers to see for themselves that I said no such thing. And if, as Daniel insists, again without him providing any evidence whatsoever, that as a group Americans are hated by ninety percent of the world, isn't it rather odd that the USA is ranked world's third most popular travel destination by a world tourism body -  even after September 11?

And that the overwhleming majority of Australians support the ANZUS alliance? And that according to a survey 62 per cent of Australians regard themselves as "favourably disposed" toward Americans, more or less the same pecentage as those which regard themselves as "favourably disposed toward India or Singapore?

Isn't that odd, Daniel?

Daniel, perhaps you could find us a source backing up your "hate" claims? Perhaps something from the Iranian Information Ministry or the Cuban Bureau of Statistics or similar Party approved source?

Hossein "Hoder" Derakhshan of hoder.com is an Iranian-born blogger, journalist, and internet activist. His writing has appeared in The Guardian, The New York Times, International Herald Tribune, Die Zeit, on Open Democracy, and so on. In The Guardian's Comment is Free today he responds to the question: What is the one thing you would most like to see happen by this time next year?

I hope that by this time next year Iran's incompetent president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will have been impeached by the parliament and replaced, at least, with a moderate conservative.
...

Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, as an Israeli rightwing newspaper sarcastically puts it, makes him look like a perfect Israeli agent in his unquestionable service to Israel. At the same time, he has damaged Iran's national interest more than any other living Iranian on the planet.

The case for his democratic removal from the office is so strong that it is not wishful thinking any more. The conservative-dominated parliament is already gathering signatures to formally summon and question him - which is a first step in the path towards impeachment.

But if gone, Ahmadinejad would also take with him and burn the huge investment that rightwing Americans and Israelis have made in him to paint Iran as threatening to the world peace.

Iran could not possibly look as dangerous without Ahmadinejad, and the West has made a mistake in putting all its eggs in one basket.

On ya Hoder. I'd like to see something like that too.

G'day Craig, Angela etc ... and to Daniel, g'day and thanks, I do what I can and do not forget others, not least the author of this thread who is has been enduring much to provide analysis of the AIPAC conference. G'day to Phil, have a report that has some signs of hope. But then there is this, in the vein of shamocracy.

BAGHDAD: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fears the Americans will withdraw support for his government — effectively ousting him — if parliament does not pass a draft oil law by the end of June, close associates of the Iraqi leader told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The legislature has not even taken up the draft measure for a fair distribution of the nation's oil wealth — only one of several U.S. benchmarks that are now seen by al-Maliki, a hardline Shiite, as key to continued American support for his troubled government.

Beyond that, the al-Maliki associates told AP, American officials have informed the prime minister they want an Iraqi government in place by year's end that would be acceptable to Iraq's Sunni Arab neighbors, particularly Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.

"They have said it must be secular and inclusive," one al-Maliki associate said.

Bit of a giveaway that. "We'll decide who will be your government and the manner in which it will govern."

 ... and so little time!

Actually, I was never a real 'ladies man,' more of a serial monogamist - as was PC in my time, and rigorously demanded by most of my dalliance partners. (One of the more extreme demanders later turned out to have been indulging in a 'bit on the side' herself. Nice.) I do hope you'll excuse my flippancy; and on a tangent, the Kitty story is a bit of a shocker.

And I digress, g'day Bob.

I read Hersh's 'Redirection' following your posting of the link, thanks again. Brrr! But what can we do? We know our democracy's pretty-well f**ked, our politicians 'represent' big business far more that they represent us (we the sheople®); that most'a big business itself is crooked (to put it mildly), that the venal MSM (including big bits'a the AusBC & SBS - Boo! Hiss!) both retail the sociopathic plutocracy's lies and, getting worse, add their own vile spin; so many targets (and so little time!) - so we need a plan.

1. The foe. The sociopathic plutocracy's three 'legs,' the military/industrial complex, the politicians and the venal MSM - Oh yeah, and all the traitorous amateurs who cravenly support these crooks.

2. The intel. We know mostly who they are, and a lot'a what they're up to. What we need to do is to clearly identify their weak-point(s).

3. The method. We can't use force; the foe has the monopoly (and besides, we're pacifist on principle). We can't out-spend them; the foe has most'a the dough. There will never be enough of us do an effective boycott, and besides any target is too diffuse. Demos have been shown to be useless, we're just 'a mob' to be ignored. What we could do is a) shame them and b) vote 'em out - better, vote some ethics in.

4. The crew, and any possible allies. Well, the crew is us, we who can perceive and appreciate the danger. Our possible allies are the sheople®. (Wake up! Turn the bloody TV off!)

I know it's only a rough outline; anyone wanna add anything?

Here's a similar view of the problem via ICH:

Our society is in need of a political and economic overhaul. We need to align civic duty with genuine compassion, the desire to make a better world. We need, by legal means, to hold our leaders accountable. We need the empowerment of grassroots movements, using tools such as civil disobedience, meetings, formal pressure on representatives.

[Irene Rheinwald/Killing the Constitution]

Whatever else, I reckon it's time for a 'happy end' to the US/UK/Aus illegal invasion now turned brutal occupation... stop the murder for oil! Go home, Yanks!

Geoff Pahoff: "Then, given a choice between Churchill and someone like Sir Stafford Cripps, for example, there would have been no contest."

God, it sends a shiver down my spine even at the remove of 70 years to think that Cripps, George Lansbury and their ilk could have easily ended up running Britain at the precise moment moment Hitler ordered operation Sea Lion. Anyway...

Jay White: "C Parsons, thank you for pointing that out. Something I have been trying to get across for the length of time I have been on this forum."

Subtitle: what you can do.

1. Write to your candidates. (No email; that can be too easily ignored: i.e. the Delete button.).

2. Ask them the four questions: does s/he support lies? Does s/he support cheating? Does s/he support theft? Does s/he support murder?

Obviously, very few will ever admit that they support such immorality. Point out that such immorality is, however, going on and is not being countered by our democracy (such as it is). We must attempt to stamp out all immorality - well, as much as possible anyway, and certainly the criminal bits - see 'Final' below.

But: you then point out that in order to properly represent you, they should never do anything that you yourself wouldn't do. Makes perfect sense, eh?

And: that you view the democratic covenant is such, that if a representative fails to properly represent you, then that representative could be sued for breach of contract.

Since this thread is about attempting to solve the Iran stand-off - a confected issue being used, just like the fake WMD stories, to propagandise us, we the sheople® into acquiescing to yet another brutal, murdering US war to steal resources. You could ask your candidates how they plan to restrain the filthy US bullying tactics, up to and including nukular threats: "All option are on the table!"

Final: There's plenty of room for creativity here (any suggestions?) - for example, if your current representative was in the government in 2003, you could ask them a) why they supported sending us off to war based only on lies, to steal by murder Iraq's oil? Then b) what that representative plans to do to make amends to the 10s, more likely 100s of 1000s of dead Iraqis? And that's not counting all the Iraqis who are yet to be killed as a direct result of the US/UK/Aus illegal invasion now turned brutal occupation... stop the murder for oil!

C Parsons, thank you for pointing that out. Something I have been trying to get across for the length of time I have been on this forum. I hope Mr Rowley was reading.

I have and always have favoured the pragmatic political approach. Much in line with that of Mr Howard. He is also not a neocon (for those unaware). And nothing in his approach to the Iraq issue from the Australian perspective has ever shown an ounce of evidence of anything resembling neoconservative thought.

Neoconservatism was accepted by large tracks of the traditional conservative community for one reason and one reason alone - 9/11. The original argument made by the left directly after 9/11 was that in some way the chickens had come home to roost as such. And I actually had some sympathy (or at least second thoughts) for this position. Then, of course, the conspiracy theories and other such nonsense began in earnest. And that article is quiet right, Clinton is more a neoconservative than Kissenger.

Bush was actually elected in 2000 on the opposite of the neoconservative approach. And he was roundly criticised the world over for this in the lead up to the election. Another episode suddenly all forgotten. I advise people to read much of the press in the lead up to the 2000 vote. Bush also incidently was widely criticised by the Democrats for harbouring allegedly anti-semitic feelings. Another forgotten chapter in history (surprise, surprise).

Now how, Angela, can you complain about neocons and also about political realists? I know why I originally supported the "war on terror" and the Middle East adventures. Do you really know why you opposed it? And you actually cannot have it both ways. This is not Kevin Rudd land. And those that sit continually on the fence generally end up with nothing but splinters in their arse.

Kissenger or Rumsfeld? You decide. Both America and the world are undergoing this decision as I write this. Most just do not know it yet.

Angela Ryan: "How anyone can talk of that disgusting puerile creature without a good barf is unknown amongst those who care for humanity as a group. is he a hero of yours Jay?"

That's odd. I thought Jay was supposed to be a Neo-Con. And here he is being tainted by that arch enemy of the Neo-cons, the Metternich-like amoral-pragmatist Henry Kissinger?

G'day Craig, hats off for your Cheney at AIPAC post, a fine effort and one that must have required a great deal of determination - and a strong stomach. There were many fine efforts yesterday so G'days to Angela, Daniel, and Phil, and also to Ern, nice to see you drop in and to Richard - have this as a follow up to your Hallibuton link.

The subject header for this post arose out of this article by Tom Engelhardt about the limited coverage of the recent Sy Hersh article about dirty dealings and covert action.  So Tom goes to work.

Angela Ryan: "How anyone can talk of that disgusting puerile creature without a good barf is unknown amongst those who care for humanity as a group. Is he a hero of yours Jay?" 

A hero? No. Superman is a hero.

Kissenger is most criticised for what he did not do. Like putting a stop to dictators and so forth. Showing the world the American way. Being a witness to so many things that were not really against let's say one's interest. The non export of "American values" etc.

Given the times then and now the word ironic does come to mind, no? We cannot pick and choose what we want to be realistic about Angela. In the real world that is not quite how it works. And it does not pay the bills.

From Israeli Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni's address to AIPAC:

First on moderates vs extremists:

Dear Friends,

There are moments in history where the threats are clear and prevention is possible, but only if we work together. In order to confront threats, we must first identify and understand them.

Our world is changing and being divided between moderates and extremists. Extremist forces seek to transform national conflicts, which are resolvable, into an endless religious war. The extremists are not fighting for their own rights - they are fighting to deprive others of their rights. The extremists use mass media, like Al Jazeera and the Internet, not to promote co-existence but to spread hate. The extremists want to exploit our values - our desire to resolve conflicts peacefully and our tolerance for others.

The Middle East is also changing. Yes, there are threats. We can see the extremists headed by Iran, with its proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian Authority. But there are also new opportunities. We can see the old divisions of the Middle East being replaced. Israelis, moderate Palestinians, and pragmatic Arab and Muslim leaders are moving into the same camp - sharing the same interests for a peaceful and stable Middle East. We need a dual strategy that empowers the moderates while, at the same time, weakening the extremists.

Compare the above to what Jeffery Sachs said in The Middle East's Military Delusions:

The moderates are in a daily battle with their own extremists, who claim that compromise is impossible. Israeli extremists insist that all Palestinians are intent on destroying the state of Israel itself. They take the Palestinian suicide bombings and kidnappings as proof that peace with the other side is impossible. "There are no partners for peace," goes the refrain.

Palestinian extremists insist that Israel is simply plotting to maintain its occupation over all of Palestine and that withdrawal from Gaza or announced plans to withdraw partly from the West Bank are merely tactical, without giving up real control over land, transport, water, defense, and other attributes of sovereignty.

The extremists have been able to block peace because any attack from one side has systematically provoked a violent counterattack from the other. Moderates are repeatedly made to look weak, naïve, and idealistic. The extremists also peddle the appealing fantasy that total victory is somehow possible, often by personalizing the battle. Israeli forces regularly try to "decapitate" the violent opposition by killing Palestinian leaders, as if the problem were a few individuals rather than ongoing political stalemate. Violent Palestinians, for their part, propagandize that Israel will lose its nerve in the face of another terrorist attack.

Then reflect on Dick Cheney's speech.

Now back to Tzipi Livni on Iran:

Ladies and gentleman,

To address extremism is to address Iran. This is a regime which calls for the destruction of a State, a member of the United Nations, Israel - my home. This alone should deny it a place in the community of nations. It is a regime which denies the Holocaust, while threatening the world with a new one. It is a regime driven by a radical religious ideology with the goal of dominating the region, exporting terror, and preventing peace.

The Iranian threat is clear not just to Israel and the Western world. Many Arab and Gulf States feel it too. They also cannot afford a nuclear Iran and, believe me, love for Israel has nothing to do with it. They know, as we do, that even if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict magically disappeared, Iran’s radical ideology would remain. And they know, as we do, that there is no path to a stable world, or a peaceful Middle East, that does not involve addressing this threat.

The international community must not close its eyes. It must defeat this danger not for Israel’s sake, but for its own - for the sake of its own security and for the sake of the values it claims to hold dear. We know that there is much more that needs to be done and time is of the essence. The initial sanctions on Tehran have had an impact and, as part of our collective effort, they must be strengthened and expanded without delay. And to those States, who know the threat, but still hesitate because of narrow economic or political interests let me say this: History will remember. The free world is being watched.

The Middle East is a tough neighborhood. And when there is a bully in this neighborhood there are only two choices, to beat it or to join it. If States in the region feel that the world will not stop Iran, they may feel the need to appease it. We live in a region where images matter, and where the perception of weakness can have far-reaching consequences. If we appease the extremists - if they feel that we are backing down - they will sense victory and become more dangerous not only to the region, but to the world. This applies to the decisions made on Iran, it is true for Iraq; and it is true across the Middle East. And it is why it is so important for the international community, with American leadership, to project strength, to demonstrate absolute determination in achieving its objectives and absolute commitment to its values.

Then consider what Einstein said:

"People are unable to view this situation in its true light, for their eyes are blinded by passion. General fear and anxiety create hatred and aggressiveness. The adaptation to warlike aims and activities has corrupted the mentality of man; as a result, intelligent, objective and humane thinking has hardly any effect and is even suspected and persecuted as unpatriotic."  

And Sachs' again:

"Moderates are repeatedly made to look weak, naïve, and idealistic."

Look closely and you may see that Cheney, Livni, and the like are continually pushing a more extreme model as the "moderate" one.  And if you're moderate and don't take up their view, if you don't respond to their calls to "get tough", to "project strength", to "fight", then they'll paint you as weak, naïve, and idealistic.

Solomon Wakeling: "I think it is patronising to angry young Muslims to ask that they be "moderate". They should be proud, they should be strong and they should also be willing to fight against the enemies of their faith, if that involves military aggression. They should also be compassionate and merciful."

Me: Under WD ethics, one is not supposed to 'play the man,' so perhaps the best I can do here is to say that some of your stuff, Solomon, reminds us of the unbridled enthusiasm of youth?

1. The Murdoch press (i.e. theAus here, Faux 'over there' etc) is not particularly known for its absolute impartiality (my diplo-Speak, see?) From the earliest days I can recall, theAus has often campaigned viciously, some would even say bigotedly, against Labor. Faux is now regarded so badly 'over there,' that it is being shunned as a forum by all Dems. Sooo, when we're looking for balance, and more importantly, when we're looking for truth, theAus would be one'o the last places I'd look. Hmmm?

2. Solomon on Muslims: "willing to fight ... military aggression..."

Me: Really. There are many points here; perhaps I will start with Jihad and the purported Caliphate. Whereas there are some Muslims with a distaste bordering on murderous hate, primarily directed at the US, it is my understanding that such hate and aggression has been carefully cultivated by the US military/industrial complex’s black-ops agents (amongst others), specifically to justify "The Long War."

IMHO, Solomon, the vast majority of the 1.5Bio Muslims are looking for the same things Norm & Edna Everage around the corner want, namely a quiet life; a job, a house'n a Holden, a few kids out in the backyard playing cricket under the Hills hoist...

Again IMHO, Solomon, if we in the 'West,' and specifically the US left the Muslims (and their oil) alone, the world would go around quite a lot easier, hmmm?

Once more recalling WD ethics, some of your opinions, Solomon, seem worse than naïve. More work required perhaps - Oh, but only in my opinion, of course. "What the devil has changed?" - You, Solomon.

-=*=-

C Parsons: "And the Yanks didn't do bad in this one either, which ranks the USA the third most popular tourist destination in the world after France and Spain."

Something just for you, Seep®©™[1]:

US Tourism Down 17% Since 2001

Reuters | Tim Gaynor | Posted March 12, 2007 11:47 AM
Maryellen Fleming-Hoffman manages a gift store on the plunging rim of the Grand Canyon, where visitors come to marvel at one of the world's greatest attractions. Business is good, local travel is buoyant, although one thing is different: foreign visitors to the canyon, like other U.S. tourist attractions, are no longer coming in the numbers they once did, she says.

Me: Do we really wonder why ever fewer (tourists, with their own money to spend) would visit the US?

Note that this is a different question from why 'wet-backs' and others would swarm lemming-like in direction US. Those poor bastards have been 'sold the pup' that the US is "the land of the free," etc. Haw! More fool them.

Note: Jay White was (rightly) allowed to pose the question on Jewish/Zionist influence on US ForPol, which I answered with "M-W!" According to WD ethics, any contributor must disclose any factor which might prejudice his/her input. Sooo, same question I posed to Mike Lyvers (so far without response), Seep: "What's in it for you?" Eh? Give us an answer, Seep, or let us know which part of the question you don't understand, so I can I phrase my query more specifically?

-=*=-

Ernest William Graham: "I am sad to note some 'inconvenient' truths about our 'middle class' response to Webdiary.
With the notable money-motivated 'New Order' domestic 'politicians' and the 'world concerned' people (both of whom are obviously intelligent) I feel that too much of our energy is directed to an area in which we have no control."

Me: G'day Ernest. 1st, let me say how impressed I am that you saved some of the HYS stuff from 'the Grufti;' compliment.

Then, I'm a bit mystified by your 'sad' comment. I'm in agreement with Daniel Smythe (g'day) when he says there are three types, those who can really see what's going on, those who cruise through life in a drastically reduced-awareness state (just waiting for Godot? What a waste of the potential good life!) - and those who actively support evil. You obviously belong to the 1st group, Ernest, as I would claim to, and I suppose most of us in that group are trying our best, in our own ways, to counter the evils. Perhaps what we are missing is the right methodology, so all positive suggestions are welcome.

But, if we're confronting things we just can't change, then I agree, it's time to go elsewhere. But where to then?

-=*=-

Really, daaarlings; going back to what we ort'a do, it's Oh so screamingly obvious: you leave me alone and I leave you alone (repeat for all on our once jewel-like planet), then we could all live happily ever after. Hmmm?

Oh yeah, didn't really nearly forget: "STOP THE US/UK/Aus MURDERING FOR OIL!"

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] Seep®©™ - Yeah, we know who it belongs to, g'day!

Jay Somasundaram: "I was under the impression that Iraq’s elected government were majority Shi’ite with strong links to Iran, and these would be stronger if the US wasn’t running interference."

The links are strong and the US does not have to run "interference". They are, though, only strong for a section of the society (be it a majority) as I said. Based strictly down religious lines (the majorities). You of course would already know this.

Jay Somasundaram: "There is an old Arab saying: 'Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; and me, my brother and my cousin against the stranger’ . I have sometimes wondered, ‘who benefits by the internecine warfare in Iraq? Weren’t the British Colonials masters of this tactic? As far as I know, most of the adjacent countries have mixed populations, and are relatively peaceful."

The English learnt it from the Romans. Where they learnt it I cannot say. Divide et impera.

In the case of Iraq these tactics were never needed nor have been intentionly used. In fact, the US has gone above and beyond to avoid this exact situation. Those that have cheered on the resistance were probably unknowingly cheering on this exact maxim.

A realist, Jay, looks at a situation, assesses it and chooses the course most likely to be successful and beneficial. For every downside, there is a upside. For every dark spot, there is a bright spot. For every missed opportunity, there is another that will come along. The revolving door of life. The trick is spotting the opportunities and taking them. Most don't and never do.

Jay Somasundaram:  "I have sometimes wondered, ‘who benefits by the internecine warfare in Iraq?"

Well, obviously not the Americans, so let's just look one more time at what the Syrians have to say for themselves:

Although Syria has links with politicians from the Shi'ite sect dominating the post Saddam Hussein political system, it has supported calls by Arab Sunnis to revise the policy of firing former members of Iraq's Baath Party, which ruled Iraq for 35 years, from the army and the government.

Syria says Iraq's federal constitution, written under US occupation, should not comprise the country's unity, encourage sectarianism and erode Iraq's "Arab identity".

There, does that clarify matters a bit? The Ba'athist regime in Syria feels a firm Sunni Arab hand, something run along Ba'athist lines, say, is needed to settle down the uppity Kurds. And by an odd coincidence, it's also helping supply and fund the insurgency. Is that clear now?

I am sad to note some "inconvenient" truths about our "middle class" response to Webdiary.

With the notable money-motivated "New Order" domestic "politicians" and the "world concerned" people (both of whom are obviously intelligent) I feel that too much of our energy is directed to an area in which we have no control.

Menzies' once said something like this: "Let us not concern ourselves with matters over which we have no control - but as reasonable people let us deal with that which is within our power to do so".

That is as close as I can remember - and I do so because it was very profound.

However, the magnificent 378 current entries to this particular subject worries me in a world where Australia is being gobbled up and sold due to the depraved indifference of the Howard Liberals.

We who are submitting opinions, are lucky enough to be able to afford a P.C. Therefore, most of us can afford to have a FREE opinion due to the people who manage this rare Australian forum in which we can interact.

There are an increasing number of our citizens who may never be able to do the same.

It seems to me that the Nation which all of us love, is indeed, at the "fork in the road" as Kevin Rudd opined.

John Howard and his minions, may claim whatever they like.  They will mostly be supported by the Corporations to whom they have laundered so much of our taxpayer's funds.

The "New Order" and it's Corporations have intentionally removed independent information from our people.  They have systematically blocked truth from any area of their control - from the venal media to the very Parliament to which we have elected them.

Howard, and all of those who have prospered by his lies and obfuscations must surely be exposed soon or - there will be nothing left of the Australia we have been so proud of since Federation.

It's time to take back Australia.

Jay W, just a few issues I thought worth clarifying:

"Only a section of what we now know as Iraq would want or even settle for a Shiite Government with close Iranian links”.

I was under the impression that Iraq’s elected government were majority Shi’ite with strong links to Iran, and these would be stronger if the US wasn’t running interference.

“The ignorance of oil and how petrol pricing comes about is astounding (a percentage think the government makes the price up, for heavens sake).” 

The last time I looked, about 40% of the price of petrol was made up by the government. I haven’t heard of any massive tax rebates lately.

“these people hate the US, but they hate each other just that little bit more.”

There is an old Arab saying: 'Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; and me, my brother and my cousin against the stranger’ . I have sometimes wondered, ‘who benefits by the internecine warfare in Iraq? Weren’t the British Colonials masters of this tactic? As far as I know, most of the adjacent countries have mixed populations, and are relatively peaceful.

Vice President Dick Cheney went to the AIPAC conference and offered an "aggressive defense" of the Bush administration’s Iraq strategy using "often-tough language"  according to Brian Knowlton writing for the New York Times.

Here is Cheney's speech in full, with my running commentary:

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Karl Rove finds out about this, he won't let me out again. (Laughter.)

There's something Freudian in that 'joke'.  Rove has been seen as the puppetmeister, but Cheney's the real string puller.

Thank you very much for that warm welcome and, David, let me thank you for the introduction. And let me thank the AIPAC board of directors and the members from all across America for the opportunity to be here today.

Thanks for "the opportunity to be here today"? The opportunity to pander to a lobby group?

I have many friends in the hall and I especially want to acknowledge Sallai Meridor, Israel's ambassador to the U.S. (Applause.) And, of course, Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister. (Applause.)

Standard pleasantries. Followed by a rallying of the youth.

I also want to recognize the many students who have come from across the country, even some I'm told from Wyoming. Welcome to Washington. It's great to see you all here. (Applause.)

We're here today as citizens from different parts of the country, diverse backgrounds, many professions and various political affiliations. Yet we find unity and strength in the values of liberty and equality and our belief in democracy and the rule of law and in our devotion to the security of America's friend, the state of Israel. (Applause.)

An attempt to position AIPAC as something other than the particularly right wing lobby group it is.

As members of AIPAC, you play a vital role in making the strategic and moral case for America's friendship with Israel. I commend AIPAC for the fine work you do, not just at this annual event but every day of the year. It's good to be in your company, and I bring warm regards from the President of the United States, George W. Bush. (Applause.)

As most of you know, the President is traveling in Latin America this week, solidifying our friendships in that region and promoting an agenda of democracy, economic progress and security. He asked me to convey to this gathering his great appreciation for your efforts, his strong support for Israel, and his firm commitment to peace in the Holy Land, built on a foundation of security, not surrender. (Applause.)

Cheney re-creating reality in real time. 

The President has been clear and forthright about his vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace. He remains committed to the achievement of that vision, nor has he compromised the basic principles he has stated from the very beginning: Peace requires a Palestinian government that recognizes Israel's right to exist, accepts the validity of past agreements and renounces violence and terrorism totally and completely. (Applause.)

So Bush remains committed to 'his' vision of two democratic states living side by side in peace and remains committed to achieving that vision, but rather than talk about that ...

Progress in the cause of security and long-term peace never comes easily. Yet the United States and Israel persevere in that cause. We understand, as Ariel Sharon put it, the right and responsibility of every democracy, if it wishes to survive, to protect itself and its values. Doing so requires moral clarity, the courage of our convictions, a willingness to act when action is necessary, and a refusal to submit to any form of intimidation, ever. (Applause.)

... it's time to ramp up the war on a tactic rhetoric ...

These qualities are a credit to the American and the Israeli people. And these qualities are tested every day as we wage the war on terror. Israelis know this because rockets are shot at them and three Israeli soldiers are now being held hostage, two by Hezbollah, one by Hamas, even as we meet here today.

We are the prime targets of a terror movement that is global in nature and, yes, global in its ambitions. The leaders of this movement speak openly and specifically of building a totalitarian empire covering the Middle East, extending into Europe and reaching across to the islands of Indonesia, one that would impose a narrow, radical vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, suppresses dissent, brutalizes women and has one of its foremost objectives the destruction of Israel.

... and the leaders of that movement are still hiding in the backblocks of Waziristan or wherever, having managed to build a totalitarian empire covering ...  well ... it covers ... um ... err ... nowhere yet ... but believe us ...

Their creed is extreme and backward looking, yet their methods are modern and sophisticated. The terrorists use the Internet to spread propaganda, to find new recruits, and they're employing every other tool of communication and finance to carry out their plans.

It's odd to think of ideologues out of the Dark Ages having a modern media strategy, but the fact is they do. They take videos of their attacks and put them up on the Internet to get them broadcast on television. They send messages and images by e-mail and tell their followers to spread the word.

... just like AIPAC activists ...

They wage war by stealth and murder, disregarding the rules of warfare and rejoicing in the death of the innocent.

And not even the instinct of self-preservation is a restraint. The terrorists value death the same way you and I value life. Civilized, decent societies will never fully understand the kind of mindset that drives men to strap on bombs or fly airplanes into buildings, all for the purpose of killing unsuspecting men, women and children who they have never met and who have done them no wrong. But that is the very kind of blind, prideful hatred we're up against.

If we'll "never fully understand the kind of mindset that drives men to strap on bombs", etc then we'll never understand what we really need to do to stop people taking that path ... but hey ... that doesn't fit the 'tough guy' character written into Dick's script ...

And their aim, ultimately, is to acquire the means to match that hatred and to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to impose their will by unspeakable violence or blackmail.

... ahuh ... so which is it now, do they value "death the same way you and I value life" or do they value whatever it is they want to demand by blackmail?

An enemy that operates in the shadows and views the entire world as a battlefield is not one we can fight with strategies used in other wars. An enemy with fantasies of martyrdom is not going to sit down at a table for negotiations. Nor can we fight to a standoff -- (applause). Nor can we fight to a standoff, hoping that some form of containment or deterrence will protect our people. The only option for our security and survival is to go on the offensive, facing the threat directly, patiently and systematically, until the enemy is destroyed. (Applause.)

"All options are on the table", but "The only option for our security and survival is to go on the offensive, facing the threat directly, patiently and systematically, until the enemy is destroyed."  And they applauded? 

The war on terror is more than a contest of arms and more than a test of will, it is also a battle of ideas. We know now to a certainty that when people across the Middle East are denied freedom, that is a direct strategic concern of all free nations. By taking the side of moderates, reformers and advocates for democracy, by providing an alternative to hateful ideologies, we improve the chances for a lasting peace and we advance our own security interests.

... but moments ago, Dick, you said we'll "never fully understand the kind of mindset that drives men to strap on bombs". So how do you think you'll ever win the "battle of ideas", Dick?

In the last two years, we have seen hopeful changes as men and women showed their desire to live in freedom. And we have seen the enemy's fierce reaction. In 2005, the people of Lebanon proclaimed the Cedar Revolution and drove out their Syrian occupiers. (Applause.) That same year, the people of Afghanistan elected a parliament. And in Iraq, citizens voted in three national elections, turning out in the millions to defy killers and car bombers and to elect a government that serves under the most progressive constitution in the Arab world.

In 2006, freedom's enemies struck back with new tactics and greater fury. In Lebanon, Hezbollah terrorists who are supported by Iran and Syria, attacked Israel, killing Israelis and sending rockets into civilian areas and have since worked to undermine Lebanon's democratically elected government. Also in 2006, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan waged a new offensive against Afghanistan and NATO forces. In Iraq, Sunni and Shia extremists engaged in escalating sectarian struggle that continues to this day.

Whoa ... hang on a minute ... so let's get this clear. 

You're saying "freedom's enemies" reacted to the Cedar Revolution by capturing an Israeli so that Israel could rain cluster bombs on, amongst other people, supporters of the Cedar Revolution?

You're saying "freedom's enemies" reacted to the election of an Afghan parliament by continuing the war that was already being fought, but they're doing so with more "fury" now?

You're saying "freedom's enemies" reacted to the national elections in Iraq by engaging in an escalating sectarian struggle that continues to this day?  They're not reacting to the occupation of Iraq? Bringing about the conditions that set the stage for sectarian struggle has nothing to do with it? Not reacting to the power vacuum created by Cheney's friend Rummy's piss poor planning in the first place?

Our duty is to face all of these challenges with resolve and we are doing so. In Afghanistan, where I visited just a few weeks ago, American and NATO forces are preparing a spring offensive against Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.

Hey  Dick, c'mon now ... I thought we couldn't tell the "enemies" what we are going to do ... no setting timetables and all that.  Now you've given the game away they'll just sit in caves all spring and then spring back to fight later, damn it ...

In Iraq, our goal remains a democratic nation that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security and is an ally in the war on terror.

... Plenty of people wish that was your goal in America as well, Dick ...

But for this to happen, the elected government in Iraq needs the space and the time to work on reconciliation goals, and it's hard to do that without basic security in Baghdad.

Yep ... peace achieved by working on reconciliation takes time Dick, so perhaps if you stopped rushing to "go on the offensive" ...

Our coalition is pursuing a new strategy that brings in reinforcements to help Iraqi forces secure the capital so that nation can move forward and the political process can turn toward reconciliation. A few weeks ago, the new coalition commander, General Dave Petraeus, arrived in the Iraq theater. He sent a written message to his soldiers and, with your forbearance, I'd like to quote from it at length.

"The enemies of Iraq," he said, "will shrink at no act however barbaric. They will do all that they can to shake the confidence of the people and to convince the world that this effort is doomed. We must not underestimate them. Together with our Iraqi partners, we must defeat those who oppose the new Iraq. We cannot allow mass murderers to hold the initiative. We must strike them relentlessly. We and our Iraqi partners must set the terms of the struggle, not our enemies. And, together, we must prevail." As we meet -- (applause).

Did General Dave put a PS on his letter?  PS We need to make sure we aren't the ones being barbaric, stupidly shaking the confidence of the people and convincing them their trust in us leads to doom. We must not underestimate them, they know we're not really their partners and many think we're the mass murderers holding their assets to enrich ourselves ....

As we meet, ladies and gentlemen, General Petraeus and his troops are in the midst of some extremely tough, intense and dangerous work. The President and I have been briefed on their progress. These American soldiers represent the best that is in our country. They are well trained and professional, their morale is high, they are giving this mission everything they've got and they are doing an absolutely brilliant job. (Applause.)

... and when (if) they get home we'll ensure they've got access to an absolutely shit-house medical repatriation system ...

It's always the case in wartime that the heaviest duties fall on the men and women of the military. The ones doing the fighting never lose their focus on their mission or on what is at stake in this war, and neither should the rest of us. Five-and-a-half years have passed since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the loss that morning of nearly 3,000 Americans inside the United States. As we get farther away from 9/11, I believe there's a temptation to forget the urgency of the task that came to us that day and the comprehensive approach that's required to protect this country against an enemy that moves and acts on multiple fronts.

... can't get through a speech without pulling us all back to 11 September 2001; it's compulsory ... I wonder if it'll still be so in 2011.

In fact, five-and-a-half years into the struggle, we find ourselves having to confront a series of myths about the war on terror, myths that are often repeated and deserve to be refuted.

The most common myth is that Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror. Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and defeating bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. We hear this over and over again, not as an argument but as an assertion meant to close off argument.

Yet the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. The most serious issue today for the whole world, he has said, is this third world war that is raging in Iraq. He calls it a destiny between infidelity and Islam. He said the whole world is watching this war and that it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation. And in words directed at the American people, bin Laden declares, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."

... and he said it (if he really did say it) after you'd already invaded Iraq Dick!  And they have already won it. They win it again every time a disgraceful act by an American in Iraq is discovered, documented and distributed to all those people who could be tipped toward thinking the way you say we can never fully understand ...

This leader of al Qaeda has referred to Baghdad as the capital of the Caliphate. He has also said, and I quote, "Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars."

Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq. They have not called it a distraction or a diversion from their war against the United States. They know it is a central front in that war and it's where they've chosen to make a stand. Our Marines are fighting al Qaeda terrorists today in Anbar province. U.S. and Iraqi forces recently killed al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad who were responsible for numerous car bomb attacks. Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain.

Hold up!  You're confusing again Mr Cheney.  We won't do what the bad guys who want to blackmail us want us to do, right?  But we must fight on forever in Iraq because that's what the bad guys say they want us to do, right?  One more question, Mr Cheney: How do you deal with the cognitive dissonance?

Here at home, that makes one thing above all very clear. If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists are fighting us. (Applause.)

... bet you won't be keen to hear that quoted back to you if the "terrorists" start stalking you in Texas ...

The second myth is the most transparent. And that is the notion that one can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements needed to carry out their mission. Twisted logic is not exactly a new phenomenon in Washington. But last month, it did reach new heights. At a hearing at the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain put the following question to General Petraeus, suppose we send you over to your new job, only we tell you that you cannot have any additional troops. Can you get your job done? General Petraeus replied, "No, sir."

Yet within his days of his confirmation by a unanimous vote in the Senate -- I repeat, a unanimous vote of confidence in General Petraeus -- a large group of senators tried to pass a resolution opposing the reinforcements he said were necessary. And, of course, the House of Representatives did pass such a resolution. As President Bush said, this may be the first time in history that a Congress voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose the plan he said was necessary in winning that battle. It was not a proud episode in the history of the United States Congress.

The resolution that passed was not binding, only a statement of feelings. Yet other threats have been made that would hamper the war effort and interfere with the operational authority of the President and with our military commanders. These, too, are counterproductive and send exactly the wrong message. When members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that's been called slow bleed, they're not supporting the troops, they are undermining them. And when members of Congress speak not of victory, but of time limits -- (applause) -- when members speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines or other arbitrary measures, they're telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out. (Applause.)

... just like you did earlier in your speech Dick when you blurter out all that stuff about the spring offensive in Afghanistan just to look tough ...

Congress does, of course, play a critical role in the defense of the nation and the conduct of a war. That role is defined and limited by the Constitution. After all, the military answers to one commander-in-chief in the White House, not 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill. (Applause.)

... and once upon a time, before Commander Codpiece, the commander-in-chief in the White House realised he answers to the people of the United States ... and had to abide by the Constitution of the United States ...

Congress does have the purse strings. And very soon, both houses will have to vote on a piece of legislation that is binding, a bill to provide emergency funding for the troops. And I sincerely hope the discussion this time will be about winning in Iraq. (Applause.)

Anyone can say they support the troops and we should take them at their word. But the proof will come when it's time to provide the money. We expect the House and Senate to meet the needs of our military and the generals leading the troops in battle on time and in full measure.

... in other words, we expect the House and Senate to provide a blank cheque ...

There is a third myth about the war on terror, and this one is also the most dangerous. Some apparently believe that getting out of Iraq before the job is done will actually strengthen America's hand in the fight against terrorists. This myth is dangerous because it represents a full validation of the al Qaeda strategy. The terrorists don't expect to beat us in a standup fight. They never have. They're not likely to try. The only way we can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission and the terrorists do believe that they can force that outcome.

... wait ... Dick, we'll have to deal with that cognitive dissonance issue here once again.  The "terrorists" don't expect to beat us in a standup fight ... so ... so we've got to keep losing in Iraq trying to fight the standup fight we started there?  You won't start by swallowing your pride and seeing the need to re-think the mission and the need to redeploy to where the "terrorists" don't expect us to beat them? Beating them in the battle of ideas might be a good starting place, but when you say ...

Time after time, they have predicted that the American people do not have the stomach for a long-term fight. They cite the cases of Beirut in the 1980s and Somalia in the '90s. These examples, they believe, show that we are weak and decadent and that if we're hit hard enough, we'll pack it in and retreat. The result would be even greater danger to the United States because, if the terrorists conclude that attacks will change the behavior of a nation, they will attack that nation again and again. (Applause.)

Believing they can break our will, they will become more audacious in their tactics, ever more determined to strike and kill our citizens, ever more bold in their ambitions of conquest and empire.

...Gezz ... it's not about your stomach stupid. They have (so far successfully) predicted that you don't have the smarts to ever beat them.  You've been losing the "battle of ideas" in this mistaken idea that a strong stomach is all the strategy it will take ...

And that leads me to the fourth and the cruelest myth of all and that is the false hope that we can abandon the effort in Iraq without serious consequences to the broader Middle East. I stand here today as a strong supporter of Israel and Israel has never had a better friend in the White House than George Bush. (Applause.)

Friends owe it to friends to be as candid as possible. So let me say that a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster for the United States and the entire Middle East. It's not hard to imagine what could occur if our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves. Moderates would be crushed, Shiite extremists backed by Iran could be in an all-out war with Sunni extremists led by al Qaeda and remnants of the old Saddam regime. As this battle unfolded, Sunni governments might feel compelled to back Sunni extremists in order to counter growing Iranian influence, widening the conflict into a regional war.

If Sunni extremists prevailed, al Qaeda and its allies would recreate the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan, except now with the oil wealth to pursue weapons of mass destruction and underwrite their terrorist designs, including their pledge to destroy Israel.

If Iran's allies prevailed, the regime and Teheran's own designs for the Middle East would be advanced and the threat to our friends in the region would only be magnified.

... When your Commander Codpiece stood in that jumpsuit under the "Mission Accomplished" banner did he pause for a second and think about what exactly was being accomplished? 

My friends, it is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while, at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel's best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened. (Applause.)

That explains why you demand aggressive action all round, Dick.

We must consider as well just what a precipitous withdrawal would mean to our other efforts in the war on terror and to our interests in the broader Middle East. Having tasted victory in Iraq, jihadists would look abroad for new missions. Many would head for Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban. Others would set out for capitals across the Middle East, spreading more discord as they eliminate dissenters and work to undermine moderate governments. Still others would find their targets and victims in other countries on other continents.

... and, aside from accepting the premise of the hypothetical "precipitous withdrawal", we're to believe that General Dave and his fighting forces will bring every Jihadist to justice (if it can still be called that) so that none will end up elsewhere ... and meanwhile all the homegrown Jihadists, creations of what's gone on in Iraq, aren't considering targets and victims in their own countries on other continents ...

What would it say to the world if we left high and dry those millions of people who have counted on the United States to keep its commitments? And what would it say to leaders like President Karzai and President Musharraf who risk their lives every day as fearless allies in the war on terror?

... umm ... probably what they already believe ... 

Commentators enjoy pointing out mistakes through the perceptive power of hindsight. But the biggest mistake of all can be seen in advance. A sudden withdrawal of our coalition would dissipate much of the effort that's gone into fighting the global war on terror and result in chaos and mounting danger. And for the sake of our own security, we will not stand by and let it happen. (Applause.)

... in other words, we've f-ed this up so bad that we've got to invent a "sudden withdrawal" strawman in order to save face while we slowly back away ...

Five-and-a-half years ago, the President told the Congress and the country that we had entered a new kind of war, one that would require patience and resolve, and that would influence the policies of this government far into the future. The fact that we have succeeded in stopping another attack on our homeland does not mean our country won't be hit in the future. But the record is testimony, not to good luck, but to urgent, competent action by a lot of very skilled men and women and to a series of tough decisions by a President who never forgets his first job is to protect the people of this country. (Applause.)

... He's a strong man ... a strict father ...

It would be easier, no doubt, to avoid controversy by following snapshot polls or catering to elite opinion or seeking political refuge in comfortable myths. President Bush understands, as Ronald Reagan did, that if history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.

... but he's such a disaster that I have to try and link him to the actor ...

Either we are serious about fighting the war on terror or we are not. Either we persevere despite difficulty or we turn our backs on our friends, our commitments and our ideals. I, for one, have never had more confidence in the outcome because America is the kind of country that fights for freedom and because, at this very hour, our soldiers are engaging the enemy on the field of battle. (Applause.)

... either you fight a war on a tactic or you get smart about stemming the perceived need of some to use that tactic ...

One of the great examples of leadership in our world is that of Ariel Sharon, a man of courage and a man of peace, who remains in our thoughts. (Applause.) In his last speech at the United Nations, Prime Minister Sharon said, his great passion in life was "manual labor, sowing and harvesting the pastures, the flock and the cattle." "If the circumstances had not demanded it," he said, "he would not have become a soldier but rather a farmer, an agriculturalist." But life had other plans for this Israeli patriot, and he did his duty until the very ending of his strength.

... and on the right they bang on about revisionist historians, what the heck is with this Sharon the simple shepherd stuff ...

Ladies and Gentlemen, the circumstances have demanded much of this great nation, but we are more than equal to the test. America is a good and an honorable country. (Applause.) We serve a cause that is right and a cause that gives hope to the oppressed in every corner of this earth. We are defended by some of the bravest citizens this nation has ever produced. We are in a war that was begun on the enemy's terms. We are fighting that war on our own terms, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

He may as well have added "We create our own reality".